Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-19-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5599
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. The petitioner in HRRP 454/02 and 455/02 is none other than the tenant under the respondent landlord at premises No. 609, V. Main, (Sanchi Honnamma Road), Pipe Line, Srinagar, Banashankari I Stage, I Block, Bangalore-50. The entire premises consists of two non-residential and one residential portions. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a non-residential premises taken on lease for the purpose of conducting tuition. The brief facts that led to filing of these revisions petitions are as under:2. The respondent-landlord has instituted HRC Petition 10115/00 Under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act i.e. on the ground of tenant being a chronic defaulter and also for bonafide and reasonable occupation on the ground that his brother is no more and he has to provide accommodation to the wife and children of his brother. In the adjacent portion itself, the petitioner is living along with his wife. Earlier, HRC 437/94 was instituted against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-19-2005
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-21-2005
Reported in : (2005)140PLR313; [2005]141STC119(P& H)
Viney Mittal, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range)-cum-Revisional Authority, Ambala (respondent No. 2).2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from C.W.P. No. 15749 of 2004.Petitioner-Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-company') is engaged in the business of construction and claims to have its area of operation across the entire country. In the State of Haryana, it is duly registered as a dealer under the provision of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') and is being assessed by Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar. For the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner-Company had returned a gross turnover of Rs. 20,65,04,077/-. as per the return, tax liability of the petitioner-Company was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-14-2005
Reported in : ILR2006KAR657
V. Gopalagowda, J.1. This review Petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 requesting this Court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the Misc. First Appeal.3. The first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies Under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in Misc. No. 26/1998 on the file of the District Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the Trustee of the Trust of SREE Vinayaka Devaru Temple, Idagunji. Therefore the order passed by this Court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-17-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)ARBLR561(Delhi); 123(2005)DLT532
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Should the Court decline to enter upon the controversy of whether an implementable arbitration agreement exists between the parties has yet again arisen like the mythical phoenix from the ashes of litigation. Mr. Rajiv Sawhney, learned Senior counsel for the contesting Defendant has contended that the Court must forthwith refer the parties to arbitration, leaving it to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction viz. whether the parties before it had agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration and/or whether the original compact to this effect does not subsist as it had been abandoned and given up or should be deemed to have been given up. In this case I have not been presented with a clean slate on which to write the judgment inasmuch as the controversy between the parties has received jural attention already. Benefitting from the detailed and erudite legal submissions made before me, it is my understanding that if possible or plausible cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-01-2005
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1585; 2005(2)WLC505
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the Trial Court on the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by which the amendment has been allowed.2. The case of the petitioners is that since the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit for eviction of property under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 stating therein that the petitioners are tenant in their premises and the premises was let-out to them in the year 1985 on the agreed rent of Rs. 6000/- p.m. and in the rent note there was the condition that after expiry of every two years the 10% of the rent will be increased. As per this clause at the time of filing of suit the agreed rent was Rs. 9663/- and in the year 1997 it was further enhanced at the rate of 10% the tune of Rs. 10,630/- pursuant to the agreement dated 11.6.85.3. The petitioners defendant have fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-2005
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT529; 2005(82)DRJ6
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.4.2001, passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller's order dated 30.8.1999, dismissing the standard rent petition of the respondent was set aside and the case and remanded back to the learned ARC for decision afresh in accordance with law after considering the provisions of Section 76(h) of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner herein executed a mortgage deed dated 27.2.1973, in favor of the respondent in respect of the space comprising of 2200 sq.ft forming part of the third floor of the building known as 13-29, Block E, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The property was mortgaged for 25 years against a loan of Rs.3 lakhs. Clause 6 of the mortgage deed stipulated that in the event of mortgage being redeemed by the mortgago...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-2005
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT538; 2005(82)DRJ12
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 15.2.2005 passed by Shri S.M. Chopra, Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby tenant's appeal was allowed and the eviction order under section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ' Act') passed by learned ARC vide order dated 24.11.2004 in eviction petition No. E-288/2004 was set aside.2. Briefly narrated, facts leading to this petition are that on 3.10.96 the petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(a)(b) of the Act against New Bank of India through General Manager and Punjab National Bank seeking their eviction from premises K-16, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting contemplated under clause (a) and (b) of proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the demised premises were let out to New Bank of India for commercial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-03-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2857; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)784; 2005(2)AWC1697(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1976; 2006(2)BomCR855; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN58; 2005(2)CTC809; [2005(3)JCR153(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC79; (2006)2M
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. A building, as defined in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was taken on rent from one Quasim, the predecessor of the respondents, by Ram Babu Jaiswal, the predecessor of the appellants, some time in the year 1958. Rent was enhanced and a fresh rent deed was executed on 7.4.1970. That tenancy continued. Quasim, the landlord died. His rights devolved on his heirs. It is the case of the appellants that they have taken assignment of the rights of certain heirs, being co-owner landlords, on 29.12.1988. The respondents in this appeal, the heirs of Quasim, filed House Control Case No.33 of 1993 under the Act, for fixation of fair rent. By order dated 22.3.1994 the House Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,950/- per month. The plea based on assignment of the reversion by some of the legal representatives of Quasim, the landlord, and the consequential extinguishment of the lease was rejected. An app...
Tag this Judgment!